[aww_dang]

If you had to make that ride to eat, you would. If you did it regularly you wouldn't think anything of it. I have a hard time believing motorists are out there hitting cyclists out of spite.

People enjoy cycling on country roads with hills and no bike lanes. Some also enjoy cycling in all weather conditions. If you haven't tried it, it is a bit much to call it impossible.

That said, I think people should be able to consume energy however they choose, even drivers of "monstrous pickup trucks". If it makes them happy or they otherwise find utility in it, it is their money to spend.

[tonyedgecombe]

>That said, I think people should be able to consume energy however they choose, even drivers of "monstrous pickup trucks".

Without concern for the externalities?

[aww_dang]

If a motorists injures someone with their vehicle, they should pay damages.

Even if I accepted the premise of climate apocalypse, which I don't, the idea of allowing technocrats control over what the public can and cannot consume seems like a more dangerous precedent. Especially when we are talking about something as essential to modern life as energy consumption.

"...If you can’t justify your existence; if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat; if you are not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then clearly we cannot use the big organization of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us, and it can’t be of very much use to yourself." George Bernard Shaw, on eugenics.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1074477-i-object-to-all-pun...

Nothing can be consumed without some form of "externality" and the negativity of someone's consumption is purely subjective. Consider the first principles of the proposal and where they lead.

You'll note that the above poster invoked "monstrous pickup trucks", a clear indicator of tribal, if not political affiliation. Ultimately it amounts to nothing more than a partisan condemnation of the 'other' and their culture. The scientism rationalizing it is nothing more than a thinly veiled window dressing over intolerance.

Of course, entertaining this flavor of intolerance and rationalizations for central planning could be considered a negative outcome. The threat of tyranny, the fallibility of man and his predilection towards corruption should be well understood by now. Just as two parallel lines will never meet, these are axiomatic truths of human nature. Whereas climate doomsaying is the latest in a long history of failed predictions of apocalypse. Nobody should be surprised that the fear is used to centralize control over energy resources, but here we are...

[tonyedgecombe]

I love how the technocrats on GBS's death panels are OK but the ones deciding energy use aren't.

As always libertarian arguments fall apart on close inspection.

[aww_dang]

Close inspection indeed. You've misread the comment entirely.

I can assure you that I'm opposed to death panels and eugenics. Consumption is essential to living one's life. Under a laissez-faire system, one cannot consume more than he produces in terms of subjective market valuations.

Shaw's proposal is not libertarian, but illustrative of where the logic of subjectively determined "negative externalities" leads. Sorry that wasn't clearer for you.